I've suggested (& published in 21 journal papers) a new theory called quantised inertia (or MiHsC) that assumes that inertia is caused by relativistic horizons damping quantum fields. It predicts galaxy rotation, cosmic acceleration & the emdrive without any dark stuff or adjustment. My Plymouth University webpage is here, I've written a book called Physics from the Edge and I'm on twitter as @memcculloch

Monday, 30 October 2017

Dark Matter Does Not Exist

I was inspired to write this blog post when I saw an advert online for "Dark Matter Day", which mainstream physics is trying to set for 31st October. I think it should actually be celebrated on the 32nd October, since dark matter doesn't exist. How do I know it doesn't exist? This blog entry is intended to present some of the evidence against it.

1. Renzo's rule. When we look at galaxy rotation curves (how the orbital speed of the stars varies as you go out from the centre) the variations in the orbital speed are always coincident with variations in the light intensity (ie: the visible mass). The rotation curve follows the light curve. This means that the speed is determined totally by the visible mass, and not by anything invisible. Renzo's rule has been generalised and broadened by Lelli et al. (2016) (see the references below).

2. Milgrom's acceleration cutoff. As pointed out by Milgrom a long time ago, galaxies only start to misbehave when the acceleration of the stars as you go out from the centre drops below about 2x10^-10 m/s^2. This dynamical relation is very difficult to explain with any sort of matter distribution. This cutoff is also suspiciously close to the cosmic acceleration, a clue that should not be ignored.

3. Globular clusters. In order to fudge general relativity to predict galaxy rotations right, astrophysicists have to add dark matter in a particular smooth halo in and around the galaxies, and so they have to invent physics for it to stay smoothly spread out. This is why the result of Scarpa et al. (2006) is so crucial. They showed that tiny globular clusters (little conglomerations of stars within galaxies) also showed a galaxy rotation problem writ small and this cannot be explained by dark matter, which must be smooth and not congregate, without messing up the full scale galaxies.

4. Even more revealing than globular clusters, binary star systems definitely should not contain lumps of diffuse dark matter, and yet when two binaries are orbiting very far apart (so-called wide binaries) they too show a galaxy rotation problem writ even smaller (Hernandez et al., 2012).

5. The cusp-core problem. The lambda-CDM (cold dark matter) model dominates astrophysics since it predicts the CMB spectrum (if you set its arbitrary numbers right), but when it is used to predict the distribution of dark matter in galactic centres, it produces a distribution that causes GR to predict the wrong rotation speeds, and so this disribution is 'adjusted' (de Blok, 2009). A fudge of a fudge!

6. Lack of evidence. Dark matter has not been found after 40 years or so of expensive looking, something not mentioned by most cosmology books, just as the aether was not found..

7. Philosophical objections. dark matter was invented because general relativity did not predict the rotation of any real galaxies. It had failed, but instead of changing the theory astrophysicists worked out with computers what complex distribution of invisible matter was needed to make GR work and went to look for it. This has worked in the past, look at Neptune which was needed to explain the odd orbit of Uranus, but Neptune was a small amount of mass in the plausible shape of a planet, whereas dark matter is the invention of 10 times as much mass as is seen (sometimes up to 1000 times), in a completely arbitrary distribution, and requiring new dark-physics to go with it. You can explain almost anything with a hypothesis like that, and yet predict nothing..

8. Quantised inertia predicts the rotation of disc galaxies of all scales very simply, non-arbitrarily and without dark matter (see my latest paper).

As said above, I shall celebrate Dark Matter day on the 32nd October and I invite you to join me :)

Quick gut question: could we consider a quantised acceleration and could it be possible to measure this on a tabletop experiment? (i.e measure increasing or decreasing extremely small accelerations and figure out if they progress on a continous or discontinous mode). I figure zero acceleration on tabletop is possible for obvious reasons.

Aristotle claimed that the heavenly bodies were perfect spheres, because, well, they were heavenly and therefore must be perfect.

Then Galileo pointed the first telescope ever at the moon, and discovered mountains, craters, blemishes. (The sunlight clearly showed the mountain ranges.)

Aha! Galileo said. The moon is not a perfect sphere.

But no. The academia of the time had the solution clear. The moon is indeed a perfect sphere. But it's made of a transparent material, like glass, that fills out all these valleys you are. And so the theory was saved for another day. And the newly born scientific revolution encountered its first ad hoc hypothesis.

Could you please elaborate a bit if your MiHsC theory can explain case of "Bullet Cluster"??:https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/science-in-progress-did-the-bullet-cluster-withstand-scrutiny/We have here a case of asymmetry when visible mass in not where galaxy cluster gravity is detected. I would rather expect some kind of spherical symmetry if MiHsC or any other MOND theory can be applied to this case.

Magnus: Thank you. I love that story. I've read it before, and Galileo's response was "Ok, if you can invent an invisible crystal to go around the Moon and make it spherical like Aristotle said, then I can imagine mountains in that invisible crystal that are 10 times higher than the visible ones you were trying to eliminate in the first place". This story is a great demonstration that once you allow arbitrariness into a theory, you are lost because there's no objective way to decide when to stop.

Rafal: Regarding the Bullet cluster. QI is different to MoND: it predicts a loss of inertial mass along the spin axes of large systems. This is how QI predicts the flyby anomalies (https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4159). The Bullet cluster, though the data does not confirm this yet, looks, because of its symmetry, as if it is spinning, so QI would predict two 'apparent' masses at either end, similar to those observed. I have not done the calculations yet because there is no data on motions within the cluster.

Gabriel: Good suggestion of a tabletop experiment that varies the acceleration and measures whether the inertial mass varies with resonance and without. The obvious way to go with this is to use light or microwaves. To avoid having to go to accelerations of order 10^-10 m/s^2 and look for resonances with the cosmic horizon, it would be easier to make a more local horizon (using a metal structure, akin to the emdrive cavity) and vary the acceleration of light (at much higher accelerations) within that.

I am an old fan of ‘quantised inertia’ from the more mathematical perspective of categorical quantum information in the reformulation of the Standard Model using motivic methods. Also a long term advocate of Louise Riofrios’s R=ct cosmology, in this context, although it will no doubt be modified in any full theory of quantum gravity. Having just discovered Melia’s long list of publications (I met him in 2007 by the way) I used google, and found your blog today!! Yes, of course I am a very poor unemployed and abused theoretical physicist. Goes without saying. But so very glad to find your blog. I will be mentioning your work in later papers, once I have read it ...

Dear Marni: Many thanks for your comment, although I've not heard of motivic methods before. If you are a 'poor and abused' theoretical physicist I shall conclude from that that you are an honest one :) You may like my paper here:

This theory of quantized inertia has fascinated me to no end, but there has been one aspect that has been confounding me and I hope you can give me some insight. If the virtual particles split across the horizon, which would appear to be light years away, how does information about the Unruh radiation from the rindler horizon reach the particle “in time” to produce the observed effects of inertia?

It’s very likely I don’t understand all the interactions of how the radiation is formed and transmitted (I’m a microbiology major/computer engineer after all with no formal physics training) but it seems like the information would have to travel nearly instantaneously across the cosmos to have an effect.

Thank you so much for igniting my imagination in the cosmos again though, reading your papers has been riveting.

After years of searching for dark matter and finding none, some people are starting to say that they really are using the term "dark matter" as a context placeholder, but his is not the case. The physicists are continuing to try to find actual dark matter as if nothing would ever happen. The above article is just another of many schemes to find this imaginary substance. If we were to use a place holder, the term would be something on the order of 'gravitational anomaly' because the effects of gravity do not match our models of gravity. When all these scientists are looking for dark matter, they are really looking for dark matter.

The contemporary research of dark matter bears all signs of gradualist occupational driven research - the only viable alternatives are always considered at the very end, when all other opportunities for grant spending get exhausted. The physicists will apparently continue to look for imaginary particles as long as there is funding for it and funding does not show signs of lessening.

I think a better strategy might be to support Dark Matter Day. If dark matter is found one day, well, there we go. If it's disproved, isn't that a wonderful lesson to be remembered every Dark Matter Day?

I would like to let you know that my quantum gravity experiment has been successfully replicated by the Aerospace Engineering Department at the New Sciences & Technologies Faculty of the University of Tehran in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I have designed 3 progressively more complex experiments, and we have successfully performed one of them, the one of medium difficulty.

The following simple experiment constitutes:

The empirical discovery of hitherto unknown physical interaction between angular momentum of a spinning gyroscope and Earth’s magnetic and electric fields.

To perform this experiment we need a gyroscope with a vertical support, and a magnetic and electric shielding cages.

According to my hypothesis, there will be a measurable time difference between a freely spinning gyroscope inside, and outside the cages.

A gyroscope freely spinning inside both cages will come to rest in less time than when spinning outside them.

The experiment was performed successfully by an experienced professional electrical engineer, and was recorded in the following two videos — Inside: 51.87 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcwSTiZ8hhAOutside: 55.54 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcwlOkueGKsTime difference — 6.6 %

To have a clear idea what is involved in the experiment, please take a closer look at the above two videos first.

For the experiment we used the following small, and light, gyroscope at 10,000 rpm :

https://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=SUPER2

It would be much better to use a heavier gyro, because the heavier the gyro, the stronger the effect, at the same rate of rpm.

The value of angular velocity (rpm) is important only in so far as to generate sufficient angular momentum to allow the gyro to spin freely for a longer time before it comes to rest.

The objective of the experiment was to obtain two values of the gyro's run time: outside the shielding ; inside the shielding.

In my experiment the two sample values are respectively: 55.54 seconds ; 51.87 seconds. There was a 3.67 seconds difference, which amounts to 6.6 %

The time difference is directly proportional to the quality and quantity of electrostatic shielding of the Faraday cage. Applying the magnetic shielding in addition to the electric one would further increase the time difference.

As you can see in the video, it is important that the gyro is elevated by means of a vertical support. Ideally, gyro should start spinning as close to a vertical position as possible, and also be able to pass lower, while still spinning, than its horizontal position.

Dear Zbigniew. This is very interesting and I congratulate you on doing an experiment. I'd like to confirm that you controlled for effects like em-interaction, or friction between the gyros and the cage, and other physical effects? I'd suggest you write a paper on your experiment with all these details and submit to, say, the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.

Kevin: Good question, which has been asked often. The formation of the two particles at the Rindler horizon is very similar to the formation of the entangled particles in the EPR paradox and it is well known that in EPR they remain entangled at long distances without a transfer of information being necessary (however that is done, I favour a erasure of time from their point of view). This can also be considered as being the propagation of a monochromatic wave (Unruh wave), and such waves do not have the limitation of v<c because they can carry no information. I hope that helps.

There are potentially two different things happening with respect to Rindler horizons.

1. Real waves are released toward the observer at all times from its own horizon (the same mechanism as Hawking radiation). An eternity of this from all observers would saturate space with waves of all frequencies from all directions, which on the one hand would be a huge energy density, but if the waves are isotropic (should be, for objects at rest), then they'll cancel with exception for some fine grained noise, which would be a refreshingly tidy explanation of the vacuum catastrophe.

2. Any waves in transit (most due to #1) must necessarily not exist in an observer's universe if the wavelength is longer than the distance of the horizon. This is a crucial decision point, but it seems pretty obvious that you can't fit a wave in a harbor that is bigger than the harbor. This means that acceleration RIGHT NOW affects whether such "too long" long waves which in an inertial reference frame are very near the observer exist at all. If your acceleration falls, then more long waves fit again. Essentially, acceleration hides longer standing waves.

1+2 at very small scales and high accelerations imply some promising particle type behavior, methinks.

I'm pretty certain there is something here with horizons, so regardless of how we approach/theorize the mechanics of it, we'll be making progress. I think my point #1 is confounding but I'm pretty sure it must either be assumed or found as a similar result for horizons to predict dynamics properly.

Mike McCulloch (3 November 2017 at 14:05) Dear Zbigniew. This is very interesting and I congratulate you on doing an experiment. I'd like to confirm that you controlled for effects like em-interaction, or friction between the gyros and the cage, and other physical effects? I'd suggest you write a paper on your experiment with all these details and submit to, say, the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.

Dear Mike, thank you very much for your very kind reply! Much appreciated. Would it be possible to communicate with you by email? I would like to answer your questions, and it is a long story. To make the long story short, I would like to let you know that my quantum gravity experiment has been successfully replicated by the Aerospace Engineering Department at the New Sciences & Technologies Faculty of the University of Tehran in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/nobel-prize/

Also, the following article, "The Curious Link Between the Fly-By Anomaly and the EmDrive" :

reported that you had made two testable predictions pertaining to operational characteristics of the EmDrive.

I agree with both of them.

Why? Well, it seems that physical reality is full of curious links, and due to your testable prediction, I think I've found another one, the link between EmDrive's thrust and the Biefeld-Brown effect :

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/emdrive/

In my opinion, the Biefeld-Brown effect :

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/biefeld-brown/

is an instance of the Abraham force :

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/abraham-minkowski/

and therefore EmDrive's thrust is essentially due to the Biefeld-Brown effect, which in turn stems from the Abraham force.

If so, the existence of EmDrive's thrust is not anomalous, as it does not violate any Laws of Physics.

If you agree with my above conjecture, perhaps we could write a paper together?

I am a strong supporter of empirical science performed and analyzed without any regard for theory. It is the basis for the scientific method and has been the basis for almost all scientific progress in the last 500 years. I am, however, definitely not a supporter of flawed experiments or interpretations used to support what has come to be labeled, "Weird Science". The reason why I make the preceding statements is a reference to the Biefield-Brown effect in a recent post.

The Biefield-Brown effect and the associated experiments by JL Naudin on, "Lifter", technology intrigued me sufficiently that I both investigated the literature, and performed a number of experiments on the phenomena. There is no doubt that both the Biefield-Brown and the, "Lifter" generate thrust sufficient to lift significant mass. Based upon very clear evidence from the experiments that I performed, the effect is due to a very understandable and classically explainable ion wind. The same principle that made air purifiers like, "The Ionic Breeze" useful. There is no anti gravity nor new science needed to explain the phenomena.

One of the primary requirements for the Scientific Method to work is that the researcher needs to evaluate the results without putting a thumb on the scale favoring any particular outcome. Contrary to what some would imagine this is not an easy state of mind to generate, and requires enormous discipline and self control on the part of the researcher. Sadly such a state of mind is neither promoted nor developed in school or our society at large. The ability to evaluate information rigorously and impartially is a key element in becoming a scientist as opposed to a pundit or today a journalist.

The natural world is full of joy and wonder just as it is. It does not require and in fact is cheapened when a mystical mindset is used to flavor it. Any result, favored or not, is acceptable as valid data under the scientific method. Theories, orthodox or not, that agree with valid data are supported (not proven as is often claimed). Theories that do not agree with verifiable unbiased experimental results are unequivocally wrong. It sounds and is quite simple, but unfortunately seems to be beyond the discipline and rigor of most individuals of our time.

Jimmy Johnson wrote: " The Biefield-Brown effect and the associated experiments by JL Naudin on, "Lifter", technology intrigued me sufficiently that I both investigated the literature, and performed a number of experiments on the phenomena. There is no doubt that both the Biefield-Brown and the, "Lifter" generate thrust sufficient to lift significant mass. Based upon very clear evidence from the experiments that I performed, the effect is due to a very understandable and classically explainable ion wind. The same principle that made air purifiers like, "The Ionic Breeze" useful. There is no anti gravity nor new science needed to explain the phenomena."

Jimmy, you are not the first experimentalist that has come to the conclusion that the Biefeld-Brown effect is due to ion wind.

The Biefeld-Brown Effect and the Global Electric CircuitA comparison of the measured Biefeld-Brown effect and the measured global circuit electric field shows several parallels. Both exhibit diurnal variations, and both show a dependence on thunderstorm activity. Based on an analysis of experimental data taken on the Biefeld-Brown effect, a case is made for describing this effect as a secondary electrostatic effect related to the global electric field. It is concluded that the Biefeld-Brown effect is a real effect:http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1867252

Zbig/Ziggy - there is a basic problem with measuring very small forces when we're working with very high voltages, in that the container you run the experiment in can be producing an effect as can the overall effect of the Earth's fields. We know there is a voltage gradient in the atmosphere and that it varies depending on weather and season, so there will obviously be a force on a compound body with different charges top and bottom. It's also somewhat difficult to achieve a perfect vacuum, so there will always be some atoms or ions being accelerated under the high voltages used in the lifters. You'll find vapour-pressures of metals listed in the high-vacuum manuals.

It's thus very easy to miss some systematic error and assign the result to something new rather than something you didn't account for. The way to find out if the Bielefeld-Brown effect works as a space-drive is to put it up into space, but even there there are voltage-gradients. Logically, if this is done, then we'll find that there is a variation of the thrust produced depending on the orientation if it is field-sensitive, but if it works exactly the same in any direction then it may be something new and needing a new explanation (but even space isn't a perfect vacuum). Since I can see explanations of current data that don't require new physics, I don't see the lifters as unexplainable until that space experiment is done and we get better data.

Basically, I'm with Jimmy on the Bielefeld-Brown lifters.

Mike's Horizon Mechanics starts with observations that are both accepted as being correct (and anomalous) and also well away from such sources of systematic error. There may of course be other systematic errors in the measurements that we don't understand yet, but at the moment they remain unexplained anomalies. Mike's theory provides an explanation that works without any fudge-factors or fitting. It happens that it also explains the EMDrive, though interestingly the earliest Shawyer result remains an anomaly as to direction as Mike has developed the theory. Still, as noted before, when we're dealing with very large energy-densities and very small forces it's too easy to introduce a systematic error in the measurements. The test really comes if someone building EMDrives listens to Mike and incorporates what he predicts as improving the available thrust, and then measures that improved thrust. AFAIK no-one has yet done that.

For the Abraham force, measurements seem to all be in a container (such as a capacitor) rather than in free space. There is thus coupled mass that can absorb momentum, and it's going to be difficult to separate out the effects of the containment from the observed measurements. If it independent of the container, then we'd really expect it to be frequency-independent or to increase with frequency since the quanta are larger, yet it is not seen at visible light frequencies but only at lower frequencies. To me, that implies that the container (and induced currents in the surface) is having an effect, rather than some new effect.

It's true that I haven't dug deeply into these effects, and may not appreciate the finer points, but there seems to be no strong evidence that there's an anomaly to explain.

(Salvatore Musumeci) You say that dark matter does not exist. I agree with you. But how do you explain the map of dark matter made by gravitational measurements of 26 million galaxies within the Insight Energy Survey? (see:DOE / Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 3, 2017).Perhaps what they consider dark matter consists only in the halo without light surrounding stars and Galaxies:bareboards, interstellar gas, clouds of cold cosmic dust etc.?

It is always possible that there is some small effect, masked by a larger effect, that is missed in any experiment. The fact that it is small does not mean that it is unimportant. One of the most famous cases is the precession of Mercury that was ignored until explained by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Perhaps there is some small effect that has gone unrecognized in the numerous Biefield-Brown tests that have been performed. With respect to my own tests I can state that any unknown effect is extremely small. It has been near a decade since I performed my own investigation. Any force beyond Ion Wind is less than approximately five milligrams on the apparatus that I used for measurement when the ion wind generated about 28 grams of force. That is, the unknown accounts for less than a 0.02% of the ion wind force. The experiment I used to show this was to build a revolving double arm "Lifter" like device, measure the torque in air, then put the device into a vacuum system pumped to a 8X10-6 Torr vacuum. The chamber walls and surfaces were metal to eliminate electrostatic charging of the vacuum envelope. The revolving arms were supported on ball bearings with an extremely low rotational friction. The double arms assist countering any electrostatic or gravitational effects from leveling error. The arms, which revolved rapidly in air showed no rotation or any sign of movement when voltage was applied in the vacuum chamber. It only required approximately 5 milligrams of force on the rotating spar to cause movement. My conclusion is that the conventional Ion Wind explanation is sufficient to explain the "Lifter" force, at least to a degree of accuracy that produces no practical force.

All experiments are subject to error. For me the previous experiment put an end to the investigation of the "Lifter" as a useful force generator out of the atmosphere.

An interesting side note is that I was even at that time looking for some effect that might be capable of getting the human race off the earth. In my opinion getting man into space in a practical manner, as opposed to the impractical rocket, is one of a few priority tasks of this age where a single individual might have an impact. Because of the lack of a low cost practical principle to achieve motive power into space, I turned my attention to another self identified key priority, practical conversion of energy from heat into electricity for distributed power generation.

When I later discovered Shawyer's work on the EMDrive and subsequent tests my interest on man getting into space has been re-awakened. What is needed is an unequivocal test, such as movement in space to determine if the EMDrive is a real and useful concept. If the EMDrive is shown unequivocally to produce measurable force, then the flood gates of money will open and the phenomena will get the many billions of dollars and associated investigation it takes to create useful hardware.

Jimmy - maybe also worth looking at http://displacementfieldtechnologies.com/about and explore the ideas. Richard Banduric has been a while on this one, and has tested it in a vacuum chamber, though AFAIK he hasn't fully shown that the force it produces is not some sort of systematic error. Theoretical backing comes from a little-noticed term in Faraday's equations, and the result that the EM field can absorb (and transmit) momentum. I haven't heard from Richard for around a year, so don't know the current status of experimental proof. The force generated is however in the 10s of newtons (up to 25gf) rather than millinewtons, so if this works in space could be very useful. Still need rockets to get out of the gravity well, though.

Ziggy - patent can be read at http://www.google.com/patents/US9337752 and there's also a newer application US20140009098. The prices quoted are silly, but if you were actually wanting to test the disks he's likely open to negotiation - on the Kickstarter he was selling a set for around $199 IIRC, but he also tells you how to make your own. They aren't easy to make, so even the price of around $2k isn't bad - probably the price the fab charges him for them since it takes vacuum deposition equipment and most people don't own that sort of kit.

The thrust developed is not great enough to lift the system against gravity. He had hoped to get something that would actually lift itself, but obviously hasn't got that far yet.

If you look up Richard's background you'll find he's well-qualified and well-respected. Not the sort of person to head a fraud. Measurements are videoed on the kickstarter page at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1736145169/the-spacecraft-propulsion-breakthrough-of-the-21st/description and there's also a video of the device being spun up with uncharged disks in the updates. Not enough people were interested in the Kickstarter and at the time I didn't have the $199 to buy a set from him. The reason for the kickstarter was to raise the funds for third-party testing.

The force produced is real, leaving the question of why it works (and whether it would work in space far from another object) somewhat open. This is not antigravity but a force being produced - it also produces a thrust when tipped through 90°. Richard's maths and derivation shows that the momentum is given to the EM field, which implies that we should be able to measure *something* in the tail space. We may have no way of currently measuring it, though, and may need to build new measurement kit.

Simon Derricutt said: Jimmy - maybe also worth looking at http://displacementfieldtechnologies.com/about and explore the ideas. Richard Banduric has been a while on this one, and has tested it in a vacuum chamber

Jimmy - according to Richard Banduric's website:

http://displacementfieldtechnologies.com/home

Latest Updates, May 10 2016, The US Patent is issued for the Static Displacement Field Drive along with the underlining principles used to generate the forces used in this drive.

Patent was issued! WOW!

I wish they had included the US Patent number. ;-)

But, that is no-problemo, since there was no shortage of patented Flying Saucers already:

The prices quoted are silly, but if you were actually wanting to test the disks he's likely open to negotiation - on the Kickstarter he was selling a set for around $199 IIRC, but he also tells you how to make your own.

$1,993 pledged of $125,000 goal!!34 backers!!Funding Unsuccessful. This project's funding goal was not reached on February 23, 2003.

Mike, here is the ultimate investment opportunity of the 21st Century:

" There is sufficient credible evidence of UFOs that proves exotic technologies exist that could change the world. We are aiming to build a spaceship that turns into a ball of light, and disappears, and that can travel instantaneously through space by means of engineering the fabric of spacetime. Most call it antigravity, but we are aiming to engineer spacetime itself. No one person, one government, nor one hidden institution should own this technology. Invest now, and own technology that will seem like majic." — Tom DeLonge https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/taming-gravity/

Ziggy - when you quote someone, please quote exactly what was said rather than something that has a different meaning through missing out intervening words. We may not have the kit to measure the momentum in the EM field, but we can certainly measure the force developed by the disks.

A patent (or even a large set of patents) does not mean that the devices patented actually work, only that they were novel ideas. Richard Banduric presents the data he has on the performance of his device, as well as the theory as to why they work. Do any of St. Clair's ideas actually work when they are built?

Mike may find it interesting since it is an anomaly based on spin. Jimmy may find it interesting as a possible method of space drive. It never received a lot of publicity, so they may have missed seeing it.

I am your camp that gravity is an aspect of electric force that is modified by matter including the way relativity changes electric fields. But my mathematical frame work coevolves the electric fields from charges in different inertial reference frames with the material that they are contained in that formulates the magnetic field as a special case of a larger mathematical framework.

My mathematical approach can be translated into your equations and predict the same effects that you are trying to replicate. What your calling the B-B vector is mathematically described by my approach in a more complex mathematical model. I will look over the effects that you are trying to reproduce and see how my approach can help in creating an experimental approach that is easier to validate.

Physics today has gone down the wrong rabbit hole and now has it’s head stuck in that wrong hole.

I would like to let you know that my quantum anti-gravity experiment has been successfully replicated by the Aerospace Engineering Department at the New Sciences & Technologies Faculty of the University of Tehran in the Islamic Republic of Iran: https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/nobel-prize/

Simon (& Ziggy): Thanks for the links to displacement field technologies. I had not seen that. I have just looked at the result given on their website (100mN lift for 10,000 rpm) and quantised inertia predicts it quite well (70mN for 10,000rpm). If you take two discs and spin them at 10,000rpm (20,000 rpm combined) an upward lift of 70 mN is predicted, since the two discs will gain inertial mass by QI due to their acceleration and therefore be less sensitive to downwards gravity. I published a paper doing a similar calculation for one disc (where the acceleration was produced by vibration, and then also spin, here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.3488

My disagreement with Podkletnov's results for spin caused me not to publish a follow up paper, but Banduric's results have given me a reason to look again.. Thanks.

Simon, Ziggy: Just a note that QI predicts this without considering em fields or special coatings, just the mutual spin. Also, the Germans were supposed to have done something similar in WW2 (an experiment with counter rotating discs - The Bell) but there is very little evidence for that.

Mike - Richard's results are experimental, though he started off looking at that velocity-dependence in the classical equations and wondering what it implied. As to whether it can better be explained by the Maxwell/Faraday equations or QI, it's worth noting that he finds that the precise coating used on the disks makes a large difference to the thrust generated.

Also to be noted is that spinning the disks up without charge does not produce significant thrust - this experiment is videoed (available in the Kickstarter updates), and the normal random variations are seen rather than a bias. There was however no attempt to place a free mass above the spinning disks and to measure the weight of those, thus checking for an effect at a distance as seen by Podkletnov. In view of your calculations, it's possible that Richard may run that test with both charged an uncharged disks. As you've seen from his reply to Ziggy, he's open to discussion, and it's not a difficult test to set up.

It's of course possible that both effects are happening, and that further tests would show both lift on the disks and a change of inertial mass of objects (weight loss) along the axis of the spin. Richard would not have expected the second effect and thus didn't set up to measure it. Since that weight loss would include the motor and the drive for the disks (and just spinning uncharged disks should produce a weight-loss in the drive system according to your QI calculations, but doesn't appear to), it needs more measurements to see what is really happening. I do trust Richard's measurements are correct, but there may be more happening that has not been measured.

Personally, I don't trust the various flying-saucer reports. There's nothing there to actually test and determine the truth, and claims are often made without justification. Though Richard's results are not as dramatic, they can be replicated and tested by anyone since he's published how to make them. It's always interesting to find anomalies and try to explain them. It seems to me that QI is not a sufficient explanation here, though, since the thrust measured depends on the charge of the disks.

Dear Psalvus: The results from gravitational lensing should not be claimed to show 'dark matter' which has not been directly observed. They show lensing 'Anomalies'. To be clear they should state something like this: 'If we assume that GR is perfect, and it predicts the lensing data wrongly because there is invisible mass, then this is the arbitrary invisible mass distribution needed to make GR work right'. As you know I am proposing that it is not invisible mass but a small tweak to the equations, quantised inertia, that causes those grav-lensing results, and this solution is not arbitrary.

Thanks for you answers! I think that Analytic's response was the most intuitive to grasp, that any particles on the "small" side would be excluded as soon as acceleration begins and then included when it stops. I'm not familiar with the EPR paradox but I'm intrigued so I'll continue reading. Thanks again!

Simon Derricutt said: " It seems to me that QI is not a sufficient explanation here, though, since the thrust measured depends on the charge of the disks."Mike, it seems to me that QI is also not a sufficient explanation of my experimental result: https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/nobel-prize/

Ziggy - your experiment with the gyroscopes spinning down faster in a magnetic field ( https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/nobel-prize/ ) should be re-done using gyroscopes made from an insulator. It is well-known that any conductive disk spinning in a magnetic field has a drag from the induced eddy currents - this effect is exploited in car speedometers and in older-type electricity meters, as well as damping systems. As such, this experiment has a systematic error which can explain the results (null hypothesis applies) and does not need any new physics (such as quantum gravity) to explain it. I'll predict that the actual time it takes for the gyroscopes to spin down will depend on the angular orientation of the gyroscope with respect to the local magnetic field angle. It's thus not anomalous (and not going to get a Nobel prize either).

For Unruh waves, it's maybe interesting to consider the difference between a photon, which is a wave packet and has a definable extent, energy, and velocity (though the frequency is not exactly defined but is a range), and a standing wave which has a precise frequency/wavelength but where the velocity cannot be defined since the wave is constant between two nodes.

Simon Derricutt, when you take a look at R. Banduric's device, it become obvious that there should be an ion windbetween the two charged discs, because the device is essentially no different from electrostatic lifter.

So, there you have a SERIOUS ERROR, which can explain the results.No new forces are needed to explain it.

However, there is no way to see how it is connected with the rotor, if at all. :-))

We need to be able to evaluate the results without R. Banduric putting his thumb on the scale. Contrary to what some would imagine this is not an easy state of mind to generate, and requires enormous discipline and self control on the part of the researcher. Sadly such a state of mind is neither promoted nor developed in school or our society at large. The ability to evaluate information rigorously and impartially is a key element in becoming a scientist as opposed to entrepreneur-inventor.

The natural world is full of joy and wonder just as it is. It does not require and in fact is cheapened when a mystical mindset is used to flavor it. Any result, favored or not, is acceptable as valid data under the scientific method. Theories, orthodox or not, that agree with valid data are supported (not proven as is often claimed). Theories that do not agree with verifiable unbiased experimental results are unequivocally wrong. It sounds and is quite simple, but unfortunately seems to be beyond the discipline and rigor of most individuals of our time.

Ziggy - interesting that you've taken a block quote of Jimmy's earlier post and copy/pasted it without attribution.

I'm not particularly worried as to whether you find Richard's experiment believable or not. I've had enough communication with him to believe he's put a lot of effort into getting good measurements, and so I introduced him to people who could help in getting better tests performed. Otherwise, I'm not involved with what Richard is doing except as an interested observer. Since we're all aware of asymmetric capacitors and what to expect as results from them, there's not a lot of point in trying to find comparisons. Charged disks but not spinning gives no thrust, as does spinning disks but no charge. Of course, these measurements may be systematic errors, but if so then the reason has not yet been found. Since one of the reasons for the kickstarter was to get measurements of the effect from other people (those who bought the coated disks) then Richard's intention was to expose any systematic errors through other people replicating the results.

You don't seem to have challenged my assertion that your gyroscope measurements are due to eddy-current slowing of the gyroscope disks. I'd have thought you'd have found that somewhat interesting. I haven't challenged your honesty here, or accused you of having a thumb on the scales, but simply pointed out a reasonable explanation for the results. It is of course bad manners to accuse a scientist of fraud in the measurements, though it's standard practice to challenge the measurement methods, possible mistakes, and systematic errors and the like. It's how science progresses to better truths.

This however Mike's blog and is supposed to be about QI-related items. I brought up Richard's experiments since it adds extra information about spinning charges. Your blog on flying-saucer drives and antigravity idea doesn't really fit because apart from the asymmetric capacitors (shown to be an ion-wind effect) there isn't any extant experimental evidence that any such flying-saucer drives actually work. Plans and designs are all over the net, so if any of them worked then *someone* would have built one and we'd have heard about it. Since Mike's basis is in experimental evidence driving the theory, then myths don't really have a place here. As such, unless you produce some experimental evidence I won't be replying to you again.

" Charged disks but not spinning gives no thrust, as does spinning disks but no charge. Of course, these measurements may be systematic errors, but if so then the reason has not yet been found."

The reason has not yet been found by you, only. Your charged disks (but not spinning) give no thrust, because they are clearly symmetric, as opposed to a-symmetric — and that is the whole point of EmDrive and THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT.

" You don't seem to have challenged my assertion that your gyroscope measurements are due to eddy-current slowing of the gyroscope disks. I'd have thought you'd have found that somewhat interesting. I haven't challenged your honesty here, or accused you of having a thumb on the scales, but simply pointed out a reasonable explanation for the results."

Well, your pseudo-objection was so amateur that I simply did not bother. However, since on the web people like you are the rule rather then the exception, I decided to spell it out on this page:

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/nobel-prize/

and also quote it here, as follows:

OBJECTIONS:1. All conductors, like the brass gyro, exhibit an effective diamagnetism when they experience a changing magnetic field. The Lorentz force on electrons causes them to circulate around forming eddy currents. The eddy currents then produce an induced magnetic field opposite the applied field, resisting the conductor’s motion.

— That is true for both, the gyro (in Earth’s magnetic field) spinning inside and outside the Faraday cage.

2.Gyro’s induced magnetic field will generate eddy currents in the Faraday cage and the resultant magnetic field will slow down gyro’s spin (magnetic breaking), and hence the whole effect.

— It is true, but only in principle. Diamagnetic materials, like brass, or copper, have a relative magnetic permeability that is less than or equal to 1, and therefore a magnetic susceptibility less than or equal to 0, since susceptibility is defined as χv=μv−1. This means that diamagnetic materials, in principle, are repelled by magnetic fields. However, since diamagnetism is such a weak property, its effects are not observable in everyday life. Also, there is a big difference between Faraday cage made of solid copper, and one made of enamel-coated copper mesh. The magnetic field induced in the gyro is weak, because Earth’s magnetic field is weak, so whatever little eddy currents could be induced by the gyro in solid copper Faraday cage will become irrelevant in the enamel-coated copper mesh Faraday cage, as you can see in the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWMCRxehhps

CONCLUSION:

Even though it is true that the experiment, in principle, is open to influences from various other phenomena, including the diurnal Carnegie curve, the overall result is clearly beyond being exclusively attributed to these other phenomena :https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/nobel-prize/

" apart from the asymmetric capacitors (shown to be an ion-wind effect) there isn't any extant experimental evidence that any such flying-saucer drives actually work. Plans and designs are all over the net, so if any of them worked then someone would have built one and we'd have heard about it. Since Mike's basis is in experimental evidence driving the theory, then myths don't really have a place here."

Simon (&Dick), unless you produce some experimental evidence, then for your silver nano-particle coated disks $3000.00 each, and the whole "prototype" for $175,000.00, there isn't any extant experimental evidence that your idea of relativistic quad-copter actually work. Your plans and designs are all over the net, so if any of them worked, then someone would have built one and we'd have heard about it, right? :-))

If, as you say, myths don't really have a place here, then why do you keep trying to sell your baseless claims here for $5000.00 each ?!!

" This however Mike's blog and is supposed to be about QI-related items. I brought up Richard's experiments since it adds extra information about spinning charges."

Sure Simon, I agree!

As opposed to your "spinning charges", I brought up my experiments since they adds extra information about "spinning" (gyroscope), and the "charges" (Faraday cage).

Your persistent and desperate endorsements of Dick's relativistic quadcopter drive idea doesn't really fit with Mike's blog because apart from your absurd symmetric capacitor-discs (shown to be an ion-wind effect) there isn't any extant experimental evidence that any such silver nano-particle coated relativistic quadcopter drives actually work, other than the only one video of R. Banduric's experiment:

Since one of the reasons for the kickstarter was to get measurements of the effect from other people (those who bought the coated disks) then Richard's intention was to expose any systematic errors through other people replicating the results."

And the results were as follows :

Systemic errors were exposed by those people who bought the coated disks, and that was the reason why only $1,993 was pledged of $125,000 goal by 34 backers who did NOT buy the coated disks.

KICKSTARTER message: "Funding Unsuccessful. This project's funding goal was not reached on February 23, 2003."

Simon, since Mike's basis is in experimental evidence driving the theory, then your gold-plated relativistic myth for $90,000.00 doesn't really have a place here. As such, unless Bandooreek, or you, produce a shred of honest experimental evidence, I won't be replying to you again. Sorry, Simon.

Joesixpack: The spam review is typical, but I take it positively. I often get criticisms and even peer reviews such as: "Obviously wrong" but they always fail to say what exactly is wrong. So I conclude that they can't actually see anything wrong. I'm sure if they could see something specifically wrong they'd be able to mention it.

Joesixpack: What a fascinating paper! (Harrison, 1995) I missed that one, but it shows a clear way to think about the relation between the expansion of the cosmic horizon (an increase in the information objects have) and the extraction of energy. If you write eq. 2 more in the manner of quantised inertia, ie: H=c/Theta then E=0.5mc^2.

" Meanwhile physics has moved towards a study of information, and it has been realised in the past few decades that when you accelerate something, say, to the right, information from far to the left can never catch up to it, this means there is an information-boundary or 'horizon' to its left which is like a black hole event horizon (it is called a Rindler horizon). A kind of Hawking radiation comes off this horizon, which is called Unruh radiation (it was proposed by Bill Unruh) and is seen as background radiation, but is seen only by the accelerated object."

Dear Dr. McCulloch, correct me, if I am wrong, please!

There is a possibility that when you say "information" (above),you simply mean photons. In this case, let's take a look at it again :

When we accelerate something to the right, then photons (information)from far to the left can never catch up to it, and this meansthere is a photon-boundary, or a photon-'horizon' to its left, called a Rindler horizon. Photons (Unruh radiation) come offthis photon-'horizon' and are seen only by the accelerated object.

So, when we accelerate something to the right photons from far to the left can never catch up to it, and this results in a photon-'horizon' forming to its left, which in turn (somehow) radiates photons that can catch up to the accelerated object.

So, it would seem that one way, or the other, photons can actually catch up to the accelerated object?

You claim that when we accelerate something to the right, photons from far to the left can never catch up to it.

Well, if these photons are light-years away, they will even have problems catching up to non-accelerated objects.

" it is seen as background radiation, but it is seen only by the accelerated object." Only by the accelerated object? Is it possible? Is there any analogy, or precedent, that would imply that such thing is possible?

It seems to me that unless the accelerated object travels at the speed of light, then sooner or later some photons are bound to catch up to it.

If I understood you correctly, photons at the photon-'horizon' can never catch up to the accelerated object, but if this photon-'horizon' (somehow) radiates more photons (Unruh radiation) then these new photons will catch up to the accelerated object?

It seems to follow that these new photons that are radiated from the photon-'horizon' must be travelling faster than the photon-'horizon' that emitted them?

So, would they not be effectively travelling at the velocity greater than the speed of light?

Dear Dr. McCulloch, if you don't ignore me again, and instead help me understand, then it would also help other people to reduce their doubts, wouldn't it?

DESCRIPTIVE, EXPLANATORY AND PREDICTIVE POWERS OF MY HYPOTHESIS:

Explanatory power is the ability of a hypothesis or theory to effectively explain the subject matter it pertains to. The concept of predictive power differs from explanatory and descriptive powers, where phenomena that are already known are retrospectively explained or described by a given theory, in that it allows a prospective test of theoretical understanding.

Mike wrote - (fascinating paper - Harrison 1995) shows a clear way to think about the relation between the expansion of the cosmic horizon (an increase in the information objects have) and the extraction of energy.

Mike, how does it work that expansion of the cosmic horizon increases the information (photons?) objects have?

Would you please explain it for the rest of us who are not professional physicists, like you, Mike?

Joesixpack: You are right: I do not claim that photons have rest mass, which would violate experiments, I just assume that they have inertial mass which is well know to be true. Well spotted. Dr Granade also claims that QI violates tests of the equivalence principle, but it doesn't. Although QI says inertial mass and gravitational mass are slightly different, this difference is independent of the mass of the objects, so for example Galileo's two balls would still fall together and so torsion balance experiments testing equivalence will show nothing amiss, as they do. So the two criticisms in the article are not true (although generally I welcome the tone of the article and it gets other things right).

First, using a model for QI that involves 'photons in motion' is unnecessary. QI can be derived solely from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: dp.dx~hbar with a dash of relativity: using horizons to change dx. For example, if a particle accelerates to the right, a Rindler horizon forms to the left and this reduces the uncertainty in position of the particle dx to the left. So dp has to increase to the left, and that means it is statistically more likely that the quantum vacuum will push the particle to the left. This is a quantum phenomenon so the assumption is that this can occur instantly. I have no direct proof it does occur instantly, beyond the fact that QI predicts very well, but there is proof that quantum systems do not seem to respect time (eg: EPR paradox, Bell tests).

Second: Yes, it is possible that only accelerated objects see Unruh radiation. This is because only accelerated objects see horizons which are required to split virtual particle pairs and make them half-real (Unruh radn).

" Yes, it is possible that only accelerated objects see Unruh radiation. This is because only accelerated objects see horizons which are required to split virtual particle pairs and make them half-real (Unruh radn)."

The above may, or may not be true, even purely on logical grounds alone.

Moreover, the Hawking radiation has not been detected beyond any reasonable doubt. What is the reason that a black hole would absorb an anti-matter particle, but not its corresponding matter particle of the virtual pair? Why not both?

Secondly, for the Hawking radiation to happen there has to be a black hole to begin with.

Albert Einstein was the first, but not the only one, who doubted the actual physical existence of black holes:

" I am still inclined to the view that physicists will not in the long run content themselves with that sort of indirect description of the real, even if the theory can eventually be adapted to the postulate of general relativity in a satisfactory manner. We shall then, I feel sure, have to return to the attempt to carry out the program which may be described properly as the Maxwellian — namely: the description of physical reality in terms of fields, which satisfy partial differential equations without singularities. " -- Albert Einstein, 1931

Even Hawking himself has been having serious black hole misgivings. There has even been a serious mathematical proof that black holes can't form:

https://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html

Mike, other than the above, what makes you think that the Rindler horizon can emit anything at all?

What is "Rindler horizon" a horizon of ?? Does Rindler horizon have mass, like a black hole?

What if "Rindler horizon" is merely a mathematical concept, or a mathematical artifact, like a "singularity" ?

But, the truth is that nobody can explain the existence of inertia, except you, Mike!

Inertia is due to Rindler horizon emitting Unruh radiation.

So, Mike, from the bottom of my heart I wish you experimentally detectthe physical existence of both, Rindler horizon and Unruh radiation.

I can only hope that after this epic Nobel-Prize experimental discovery of the physical existence of both, Rindler horizon and Unruh radiation, there will be some evidence that they also have something to do with creating inertia.

Mike, as long as you can access the stream of funding, you can keep experimenting in search of Rindler horizon and Unruh radiation. Forever!

And if it turns out that you still can't see Rindler horizon and Unruh radiation, it may always be due to Rindler horizon being made of Dark matter, and Unruh radiation being made of Dark energy!

Good luck, Mike! :-))

I will never bother you with my stupid doubts and questions ever again. Promise.

It was supposed to explain mass, and its discovery was awarded the Nobel Prize, but only to realize, shortly afterwards, that the GOD particle can't explain the existence of very small masses of neutrinos and their fluctuations! :-))

Ziggy: A black hole absorbs one of the pair and not the other because when the pairs are formed they have to conserve zero overall momentum, so they always travel in opposite directions, one in, one out.

It's maybe worth pointing out that a singularity is a mathematical construct and cannot be physical. Whereas the mathematics can conceive of a geometrical point as being where all the mass is concentrated, and thus that gravitational attraction will approach infinity the closer you approach, real particles are limited by the uncertainty principle and so are somewhat more spread-out. At the "centre point" of the particle, there will be a distribution of "stuff" around it, giving a limit to gravitational force that can be exerted. I think it's reasonable to suppose that the limit on gravitational force is where time has been stopped (the Schwartzschild limit) and that we can't measure anything within that radius - could even be that nothing actually exists within that radius, as there is no spacetime inside it. That in turn implies that the matter only exists at the Schwartzschild limit which is a surface with no internal volume. Though singularities are a staple of sci-fi, they seem to indicate that the maths isn't correctly describing the physics. That's probably why "renormalisation", which consists of ignoring the infinities produced in the equations, works and gives the right results. Real things have limits, and the event horizon is not just a limit beyond which you don't know but a limit beyond which nothing happens either, since there's no time for anything to happen in. Thus it's not the externally-measured volume of the black hole that determines its total mass, but its surface area. As the black hole absorbs mass and gets bigger, its density (as measured in 3-space) will decrease.

My understanding is that unpaired escaping antimatter particles are annihilated a short time later by other matter (basically the interstellar medium) they run into moving away from the black hole. We don't detect them, but the cosmic ray radiation of the annihilation.

On the other hand, escaping matter particles have a far lower chance of being annihilated shortly after the escape.

You seem to be getting at some kind of asymmetry regarding antimatter capture and matter escaping. I am not sure anyone has inferred that.

That inference might be correct though, even as much as it seems (?) you are saying it is wrong:

"Gamma-ray line radiation at 511 keV is the signature of electron–positron annihilation. Such radiation has been known for 30 years to come from the general direction of the Galactic Centre1, but the origin of the positrons has remained a mystery. Stellar nucleosynthesis2,3,4, accreting compact objects5,6,7,8, and even the annihilation of exotic dark-matter particles9 have all been suggested. Here we report a distinct asymmetry in the 511-keV line emission coming from the inner Galactic disk (∼10–50° from the Galactic Centre). This asymmetry resembles an asymmetry in the distribution of low mass X-ray binaries with strong emission at photon energies >20 keV (‘hard’ LMXBs), indicating that they may be the dominant origin of the positrons. Although it had long been suspected that electron–positron pair plasmas may exist in X-ray binaries, it was not evident that many of the positrons could escape to lose energy and ultimately annihilate with electrons in the interstellar medium and thus lead to the emission of a narrow 511-keV line. For these models, our result implies that up to a few times 1041 positrons escape per second from a typical hard LMXB. Positron production at this level from hard LMXBs in the Galactic bulge would reduce (and possibly eliminate) the need for more exotic explanations, such as those involving dark matter."

This implies collapsed stars play a role in antimatter formation for the bulk of antimatter in the cosmos, but it is also more persuasive evidence that dark matter does not exist.

About Me

My book

Contributions

If you enjoyed this blog, please note I'm not paid for it and I only have a part time job. Your contribution, however small, would be greatly appreciated & would help me to continue my work: https://www.paypal.me/MikeMcCulloch